Nike ordered to release additional information about pay practices in sweeping gender-discrimination lawsuit after Insider and other publications' challenge of court seal

• A judge ordered Nike to unseal additional records in a sweeping gender-discrimination lawsuit.
• The ruling is a victory for news outlets that challenged the protective order in April.

A judge on Friday granted a victory to a group of news outlets seeking to unseal additional records in a sweeping gender-discrimination lawsuit against Nike.

In a 15-page ruling, US Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo said Nike must release more information about its pay practices, including information about what the plaintiffs allege is a pay gap between male and female employees.

Nike had tried to block the release of the information, arguing that attorneys for the plaintiffs derived the pay information from confidential employee compensation data and that the release would allow competitors insight into Nike's pay practices. Nike also disputed the accuracy of the calculation.

Nike and the plaintiffs have 14 days to file written objections to the ruling. If the judge doesn't reverse the decision, Nike must refile unredacted documents with the court.

"The court finds that Nike's proffered reasons to seal are neither compelling nor, on balance, outweigh the public interest in disclosure," Russo wrote. "Defendant's alleged refusal to pay female employees fairly is a matter of public import and the subject matter of this litigation."

The lawsuit, filed in 2018, alleges that women at Nike employees were "devalued and demeaned." It followed explosive reports in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times in which sources described a "boys-club culture" at Nike.

Since then, Nike has repeatedly said it has zero tolerance for discrimination. It's also updated numerous human-resources practices.

The lawsuit, which awaits a ruling on a motion that seeks class certification, is proceeding under a protective order, a legal mechanism that can speed up complex lawsuits, including cases with a great deal of sensitive personal information.

Insider, The Oregonian, and the Portland Business Journal challenged the protective order in April, arguing that more information about Nike's pay practices is in the public interest.

"We're pleased the court recognizes the strong public interest in this case," said Ellen Osoinach, a local legal initiative attorney in Oregon for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "The released records will shed light on the extent of Nike's alleged pay inequities. However, public access to the remaining sealed and redacted records remains a priority."

Russo also ruled against Nike's request to keep some information sealed regarding a 2018 internal pay-equity study.

"Defendant's mere desire to keep this information confidential is inadequate in this context, nor does it outweigh the public's interest in disclosure, especially in light of [Nike's] initial and widely-disseminated statements concerning the study," she wrote.

Nike did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Laura Salerno Owens, said: "We agree with the court's ruling. In a class action impacting thousands of Oregonians, the public has a right to view the evidence. Nike should not be able to hide statistics evidencing Nike's discriminatory practices. Nor should Nike be able to hide that it stopped its promotion practice study, especially when it touted that study publicly. As the court noted, 'sunlight is the best disinfectant' — the only way to truly achieve justice is to have a transparent and open examination of Nike's treatment of women in the workplace."

Last week, Salerno Owens told Insider that Nike employees had continued to contact her with discrimination claims.

In her ruling, Russo criticized Nike's repeated attempts to seal documents, saying it had "erroneously designated certain redactions in its initial filing," which led to additional document submissions and a "tremendous expenditure" of court time.

Russo also granted a motion by the publications to intervene in the lawsuit, essentially giving them a watchdog role in sealing or redacting documents.

"Courts routinely permit the press to intervene for the purpose of unsealing judicial records," Russo wrote, adding that the interests of the public and the press are "not necessarily represented in the litigation."

Do you work at Nike or have insight to share? Contact the reporter Matthew Kish via the encrypted messaging app Signal (+1-971-319-3830) or email (mkish@insider.com). Check out Insider's source guide for other tips on sharing information securely.